Small
Businesses for Timothy’s Law

Open
Letter to Small Business Owners from Susan Wheeler, Chair of Small Businesses
for Timothy's Law

Dear
Fellow Business Owner:

As
business owners, we are well aware of the increasingly exorbitant cost
of providing health insurance to our employees. These costs can bring
us dangerously close to the break-even point, and often prevent us from
providing our employees with the benefits we know they need. Indeed, when
new benefits are proposed, we often just want to scream in exasperation
and say, “Enough, I can’t afford what I am paying for as it
is!”

However,
did you ever stop to think about how much more it costs you to not provide
generous health insurance to your employees?

Many
large businesses have now determined that providing their employees high
quality health insurance, with generous benefits, is actually better for
their bottom line than providing health insurance with lower benefits.
These businesses have learned from experience that providing employees
with employees access to the services and treatment they need, when they
need it, greatly reduces the costs associated with absenteeism and lost
productivity.

And
when it comes to mental health and chemical dependency, the same holds
true. Companies like American Airlines, AT&T, Delta Air Lines, Dow,
Dupont, Eastman Kodak, Federal Express, General Motors, IBM, Pepsico,
Pfizer and Xerox offer mental health benefits that far exceed the mandated
minimum requirements that smaller employers like me offer. These larger
businesses are trying to reduce the amount of money they lose to absenteeism,
tardiness, preoccupation, distraction and dysfunction among employees
with mental health needs. As a whole, mental illness costs US businesses
$79 billion annually in lost productivity.

In
a recent interview with National Public Radio on the costs of depression,
the former-Director of Benefits Strategies at Delta Airlines, Dr. Miles
Snowden, said, “For every $1.00 that we have spent in providing
behavioral health benefits, we are getting $1.50 back in terms of reduced
absence from work and improved productivity.”

It’s
also important to note that businesses that offer generous mental health
and chemical dependency insurance benefits experience lower usage rates
of health care services altogether. In fact, when a large Connecticut
corporation implemented a 30% cost reduction in mental health services,
it triggered a 37% increase in medical care use and sick leave by employees
using mental health services, thus costing the corporation more money
rather than less. Indeed, former-US Surgeon General David Satcher was
right when he said, “There is no health without mental health.”

Large
employers aren’t the only businesses losing money to the mental
health needs of employees. When it comes to smaller employers, we are
actually at higher risk of being negatively effected by mental health
needs and stand to be hurt more than larger employers. NYS Assemblymember
Joel Miller (R-Poughkeepsie), a dentist and small business operator for
35 years explains that, “Small businesses do not have the depth
in the number of employees to be able to fill in for the worker who is
being a good parent or family member. If an employee is distracted by
their mental health needs or those of their family, they aren’t
a productive worker, and the business suffers. Small businesses really
can’t afford to not provide this coverage.”

To
get an idea of how much mental illness is costing my business, I recently
used the ‘Depression Calculator’ available on-line through
the MacArthur Initiative on Depression and Primary Care at Dartmouth &
Duke (http://www.depression-primarycare.org/organizations/employers/calculator/).
With seven employees, they estimate that depression, alone, causes my
business to lose twelve work days each year to poor-at-work productivity
and nine work days each year to absenteeism. They estimate this costs
my business $810 annually.

On
top of the fact that small businesses like ours are losing money to mental
health needs, our businesses also suffer because of the distinct competitive
advantage many large employers hold over us when it comes to recruiting
and retaining highly qualified employees. In addition to the often higher
salaries that larger organizations are able to offer, a better health
benefit package makes working for one of these larger employers that much
more attractive than working for smaller businesses like ours.

So,
how much would it cost us small employers to provide our employees with
better mental health benefits so that we have a healthier workforce and
we are able to eliminate the disadvantage we face? According to the actuarial
firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, providing more generous mental health and
chemical dependency treatment benefits would cost an additional $1.26
per person per month in health insurance premiums. This $1.26 would ensure
that mental health and chemical dependency benefits equal to the other
health services covered under all insurance policies. Not only do I think
that $1.26 per month is an adequate investment in my employees and their
families, but the long term benefits of a healthier workforce will help
my business grow and help level the playing field with larger employers.

It
may seem odd that as a small business owner, I support a health insurance
mandate. But the most basic rule of insurance is to spread risk over the
largest pool possible. If all insurance policies provided parity-based
mental health and chemical dependency benefits, all businesses would benefit
in the long-run from the increase in productivity and the reduction of
absenteeism.

Therefore,
as a small business owner, I am joining Assemblyman Miller and others
in supporting efforts to enact what has now become known as Timothy’s
Law. The bill is named in memory of Timothy O’Clair, a 12 year-old
Schenectady boy who took his own life nearly four years ago after his
parents were unable to get him the mental health services he needed. The
law currently allows insurance companies to limit the coverage they provide
for mental health and chemical dependency services. Timothy’s Law
would require all health insurance policies to cover benefits for mental
health and chemical dependency services and treatments equal to the benefits
provided for other health conditions, like diabetes, cancer or others.

In
the case of Timothy’s father, Tom, his employer lost over 800 hours
of work time as he struggled to get his son the services he needed. That
number says nothing of his decreased productivity at work, as he was preoccupied
with his son’s condition. Not only that, but Tom and his wife were
forced to grapple with relinquishing custody of Timothy to the county
so that he could access services as a Medicaid recipient. This was devastating
to the family and placed the burden of providing care on the individuals
and businesses that pay taxes in New York.

I
ask you to join me as a ‘Small Business for Timothy’s Law’
and support efforts to enact Timothy’s Law. If you would lend the
name of your business to this effort, we can work together towards the
creation of a better, stronger workforce that will, in turn, help us grow
into better, stronger businesses.